Talk:Conrad Burns

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Copy

someone has been copying and pasting in the biography from his senatorial homepage, which is hardly an NPV source. others can integrate the material into it how they see fit. i just didn't want it to be up there straight-up like that. Crunk 23:17, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

So why can't you be impartial, Crunk, and show both the positives and negatives of his career. You're doing as much of an injustice as someone who would leave only the flattering parts. Glockfan

[edit] NPOV

I'm confused--I just posted a challenge to NPOV of this article, then I find there already are comments. Can one of his staffers just remove the NPOV tag?

[edit] Removed

I removed this paragraph from the article: "A voice for the farmer": Burns has been an true advocate of the agricultural community in Montana. Given the fact that over 64% of Montana is used for farming or ranching, Burns has worked hard to secure federal funds to aid cultivation. He has also done his part in supporting the trade imbalance that harms many ranchers and farmers.
Ground 04:17, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Why? Hyacinth 17:29, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The heading contradicts the attempt at "balance" present in the paragraph, which reads to me more like unmitigated and unsubstantiated presentation of two POVs rather than NPOV. Ground 18:17, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
NPOV actually "doesn't assume that it's possible to write an article from a single, unbiased, objective point of view. The policy says that we should fairly represent all sides of a dispute" (Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Introduction). Hyacinth 01:07, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
However, I don't see any factual representation included with either statement. IMO that is necessary (which is why I don't have an issue with "A controversial speaker"). Ground 03:29, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] conspiray

http://www.jacksonholestartrib.com/articles/2006/01/10/news/wyoming/aed81f1fb459d4e1872570f2006117ec.txt

[edit] Editing of the article by by Senate staffers

[edit] Fark.com

This article has just been indirectly linked on www.fark.com 's main page. The actual article linked on the main page is http://dailychronicle.com/articles/2006/02/09/news/wikipedia.txt but we all know what happens next... Fosnez 21:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

O RLY? --Thax 22:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes Really. Now shut the fark up and use some vowels. Wolverineblue 22:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Ahahaha, busted. 195.137.55.71 22:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blackening his own eye?

Hopefully politicians will see that they are only blackening their own eyes by editing their Wikipedia entries. People can see custom-crafted biographies that portray their subjects as saints on any politician's web site; the Wikipedia and the public are ill-served with such tripe. Shame on you Conrad. Sukiari 08:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

They should learn from their opponents and do it from home. --Ajdz 05:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Just IP ban Congress

This keeps happening. I guess the people in congress have gotten wind of Wikipedia. We should just perminantly IP ban them, or at least prevent them from making edits. (and keep a watch on changes made to profile pages of Senators and Congressmen) Klosterdev 06:13, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Why? There seem to be enough deeply obsessed editors to keep watch. --Ajdz 06:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
While there have been a some cases of POV pushing and outright vandalism, many edits originating from Congressional IPs have been quite helpful. Remember to assume good faith. — TheKMantalk 06:36, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikinews article

(Note: there seems be be consensus that the following information, which was part of the main article, doesn't belong there - it's really not about Burns per se. [see next section, below] I am posting it here so that it is available to those interested, and is better preserved (to the extent that Wikipedia information can be, or already isn't, preserved). John Broughton 16:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC))

An investigation by correspondents for Internet news site Wikinews linked Burns' office to changes in this article. [1] In particular, references, citations, and descriptions of Sentator Burns' use of the word "ragheads" were removed[2], as was mention of legislation, co-sponsored by Burns, that would reduce Native American tribal sovereignty. Also, a paragraph was added praising Burns as a 'Voice for the farmer'.

On Wednesday, February 8, 2006, Burns' spokesman, James Pendleton, pointed to the site's open-source nature. Said Pendleton, "They have exactly zero credibility. "[3] And, "I don't know why this is a story. There is no sanctity in Wikipedia. Somebody will always come and change it." [4]

[edit] NPOVing

The edits are by me, and I'm definitely not a member of Sen. Burns' staff. I live in Florida and I vote Democratic. If I lived in Montanta, I never would've voted for Sen. Burns. Nevertheless, I am interested in clearing out bias against the senator because I am committed to making Wikipedia a legitimate encyclopedia, not because I want to see the senator reelected. Before my edit, the article read like a write-up by a campagin opponent. I restored some proportion. Recent bad press should not dominate the article, as an encyclopedia article is supposed to be a career overview. In this case Burns has been a senator for nearly 18 years. A lengthy discussion of recent bad press is inappropriate unless the rest of the senator's career is discussed in equal detail. 172 | Talk 18:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Let's recap: you removed:
  • ALL of the "Controversial statements" section, much of which was about incidents in the 1990s.
  • ALL of the details about Burns' 2003 earmark of $3 million for a Michigan tribe, along with a lot of details about Abramoff's influence on Burns.
  • ALL of the information about staff members modifying the article.
You added, in order to provide the article with more balance:
  • Nothing.
You said: A lengthy discussion of recent bad press is inappropriate unless the rest of the senator's career is discussed in equal detail. Is that wikipedia policy, or is that personal opinion? If it's wikipedia policy, please cite. If it's personal opinion, please explain in more detail why you think removing large chunks of the article actually benefits the reader.
In the meantime, I'm reverting the changes. John Broughton 21:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

(1) The "controversial statements" section has to go. Every public official has made controversial statements. Sen. Burns, however, is the only one to have an entire section devoted to his unfortunate remarks because some editor who had an axe to grind against him stuck in the section heading. (2) The speculation about Abramoff's influence on Sen. Burns is original research. Yes, he received Abramoff money. But suggesting that Abramoff influenced Burns votes is speculation or original research. In addition, it isn't proportioate to focus so much attention on recent bad press and so little attention to the rest of Burns' nearly 18 years in the Senate. (3) While I'm open to discussion regarding points 1 and 2, the section on the Wikipedia article is definitely irrelevant. See a related discussion on Talk:Norm Coleman. (4) Yes, I added nothing in order to provide the article with more balance. Instead, I removed the stuff that made matters clear that many of the past authors of the article had an axe to grind against the senator. 172 | Talk 07:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Burns' connections with Abramoff, and potential legal trouble for him as a result, have been widely reported. At least some discussion of this in the article would be appropriate, so long as it is properly cited. In terms of the "controversial statements," that should only be included if someone can provide evidence that Burns is widely known for making verbal gaffes (as, for instance the Duke of Edinburgh). If this is just a cherry-picking of stories nobody much noticed at the time, it shouldn't be included. john k 16:06, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
I have posted the wikipedia editing information to this page (above). I have edited down the "controversial statements" section to include several incidents that made national headlines, and limited it to those where Burns has not denied making the statements. For example, I removed the "jughead" name-calling incident; that's not that newsworthy. The statements that remain do, I believe, offer an insight into Burns. More importantly, they are not the kind of statements that other Senators have made (known exception: Trent Lott's positive statements about Strom Thurmond's Presidential bid). I have also quoted a local (Montana) newspaper that mentions that Burns is known for making these kinds of statements. I will look for other sources to confirm this last point. John Broughton 16:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Some discussion of the Abramoff connections is necessary, but it should really be honed down from what we have... I think the "controversial statements" section is a cherry-picking. I have Congressional Quarterly's sourcebook on the members of the 109th Congress in front of me. They often cite some examples of gaffes when a member has a reputation for off-the-cuff remarks. (In previous editions, for example, CQ would always devote large chunks of text for Fritz Hollings' offensive remarks.) Their latest entry on Sen. Burns does not mention that he is well known for off-the-cuff remarks; nor does it mention a single comment listed in the Wikipedia article. The section should be removed entirely. 172 | Talk 16:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
172 - you said: The speculation about Abramoff's influence on Sen. Burns is original research. I've reread the entire section, and I didn't see a single word, let alone sentence, that wasn't simply a reporting of the facts that have been published elsewhere. Nowhere in the article are there either unreported facts or sentences with speculation like "Abramoff influenced Burns to do his bidding.". John Broughton 16:55, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
The influence is implied. The section doesn't call him a crook outright, but it suggests it pretty strongly. 172 | Talk 17:01, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

In terms of the Abramoff stuff, it seems like it's hardly OR. Burns is pretty universally spoken of as the Senator most caught up in the Abramoff scandal. Senator Coburn, it would appear, expects that Burns will be indicted (I wouldn't support this going in the article of course, as Coburn doesn't name Burns, but it's pretty obvious that's who he means). From all news reports, Burns is in serious legal jeopardy, and may very well be indicted. It would be irresponsible for the article to whitewash that, just as it would be irresponsible for it to outright call him a crook. In terms of the statements, the Helena Independent Record link seems to support the idea that Burns has something of a reputation for verbal gaffes. john k 21:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

The Coburn quotation was what I had in mind when I was referring to original research. Colburn is probably referring to Burns, but since he is not named, only our speculation can be offered. Burns is probably in serious legal trouble. Still, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news service. Shouldn't we wait for the indictment before having such a lengthy section on Abramoff? As for the gaffes, let's weave a couple into the text. An entire section devoted to "controversial statements" gives the appearance of cherry-picking. 172 | Talk 00:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I fully agree with you that the Coburn stuff can't go in. I was just noting that Burns looks to be in serious shit, and it behooves us to report it in an NPOV manner, and not to not mention it at all. I've no strong opinion on the controversial statements section. john k 03:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

172 - I note that you've offered four different reasons why you want to shorten the Abramoff section [to two sentences, with the far longer saying that Burns had done everything he could to return the campaign contributions]:

  • so that the material does not come across as guilt by association/Democratic Party propaganda (edit summary, March 19th)
  • Restoring some proportion. Recent news should not dominate the article, as an encyclopedia article is supposed to be a career overview. In this case Burns has been a senator for nearly 18 years. (edit summary, April 15th) [Your addition of major, noteworthy accomplishments of the Burns during his 18 years as Senator is always welcome, of course.]
  • that the section is speculation or original research (above), which, when challenged, you explain as related to the Coburn quotation [when, in fact, the Coburn statement was added to the article after you did the March 19th and April 15th massive deletions]
  • Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news service. Shouldn't we wait for the indictment before having such a lengthy section on Abramoff?

The sense I get from others is that the disputed tag should come off the section. John Broughton 04:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that the controversial statements part should be kept in because it does seem to be a habit and at least well enough known among political junkies if not among people in MT(Though it might be, I don't know). Also he was prominently attacked by his opponent in the 2000 SEN race for the Raghead comment in a way that generated some press I believe. Also the Abramoff stuff might be recent news but it's shaping up to be important in his life. He might be put up for charges and/or lose re-election because of it. I'd say keep it and if he wins re-election and doesn't seem to be heading to the pokey then cut it down to a line of two mention. --rtaycher1987 05:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

172 is correct, the quotes belong in wikiquote, and the inclusion of this number of statments is an attempt to poison the article. Wikiquote was createdfor a reason, they belong there. If you all disagree with this, just remember, precidents are set by actions like this. I would also add that in relation to Abramof, Burns has not been indicted of anything, let alone convicted. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 01:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for he feedback. To start, I'll start a Wikiquote entry on Burns. 172 | Talk 03:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Never mind. You beat me to it, making my work easier. 172 | Talk 03:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quotes

Are the quotes notable enough to be in the article and Wikiquote? Lets see what Google has to say:

  • In late February 2006, Burns said President Bush has a skull of "solid granite," criticizing Bush's stubbornness in his continued support for transferring some U.S. port operations to a company owned by a United Arab Emirates government. A day after Burns made the remark at the Hill County Republican Party's annual Lincoln Day Dinner, spokesman Matt Mackowiak said the reference to granite was not meant as an insult. "He says the same thing about his son," Mackowiak said. "It's a little joke he likes to use."
  • In 1994, Burns told the editorial board of the Bozeman Chronicle that when asked by a constituent, "How can you live back there in Washington, DC with all those niggers?" he replied, "[It's] a hell of a challenge." When he was asked about the use of the racial slur, he said: "I don't know. I never gave it much thought."
  • On February 17, 1999, while at a meeting of the Montana Implement Dealers Association in Billings, Montana, Burns referred to Arabs as "ragheads". Burns later apologized.
  • In 2000, he offended a Billings woman when he pointed to her nose ring and asked her what tribe she was from.
  • On December 21, 2005, Burns stated that "We've got to remember that the people who first hit us in 9/11 entered this country through Canada." This claim, which is false and is directly contradicted by the findings of the 9-11 Commission, drew criticism from those questioning Burns' grasp of domestic security. Canadian ambassador Frank McKenna demanded an apology from Burns. [5]

The answer is no. Torturous Devastating Cudgel

Time magazine and the Almanac of American politics disagree with your assessment. Gamaliel 19:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Gamaliel, take this to Wikiquote. Every member of the Senate has made controversial comments. I see no reason that Burns is singled out other than the fact that he is a Republican running for reelection this year. 172 | Talk 19:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I am "singling him out" because Time and the AAP have singled him out for this behavior. Gamaliel 19:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

172 is right on this issue and in a more general sense, far too many articles suffer from this type of extremist character assignation, I should know, and corrective measures should be applied by all parties. All quotes were removed from the Michael Moore article for a similar reason [6], although some have crept back in. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not interested in a quotes section. I'm interested in a section documenting notable controversies caused by these quotes. Deleting this on the basis that "it's a quote section" is invalid. With that logic you could go to the Jesse Jackson article and remove any references to the "hymie town" comment, for example. Gamaliel 20:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

hymie town has 19,400 hits. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
And Jackson is much more famous than Burns. Gamaliel 05:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Which is why its in the article. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Coming here from the RFC. I follow politics pretty closely, and never heard of any of these remarks: none were really national controversies. I don't have objections to including real controversies, but these seem not to be especially notable ones. Partisan Bob Herbert is hardly a neutral source. Two of the remarks in the subsection are certainly less than notable: the "solid granite" remark was a figure of speech that got no White House rebuke; and I don't see Hillary Clinton's identically inaccurate claim that the terrorists came from Canada in her article, or even her subarticle. There's a real POV problem of disproportionateness in making a handful of stray statements in fifteen years the most prominent section of the article. Why isn't it enough to have the "serially offensive" description from TIME in the 2006 election section, perhaps including the one "raghead" remark as an example of his gaffes? -- FRCP11 06:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course I have no problem with changes such as eliminating a remark or two on the basis of non-notability, condensing the section, etc. I do have a problem with eliminating it entirely and I don't think mentioning one example and saying "he says other stuff too" is sufficient. Gamaliel 20:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
It's not eliminated. It's noted, and the criticism is noted, and a Wikipedia reader can go to other sources to find out more information. That's all the notability it deserves: none of his remarks were major news, none of his remarks affected his career (unlike the Jackson Hymietown remark on both counts). If this were a larger biography, then it could have its own section, but it's disproportionate in such a short biography to have the largest section focus on these stupid statements. Why isn't that enough? You still haven't answered that question. It's not like the current version of the article is misleading or sanitized. -- FRCP11 22:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
It's not enough because one offensive remark is an anomaly. The article should document his history of such remarks since he has a reputation for continually making such remarks. If you are concerned about thsi overwhelming the rest of the article, I have no problem helping to expand the rest of the article with you. Gamaliel 00:08, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Look -- you requested comments, I commented. You still haven't indicated where the current version is misleading or sanitized. It says he has a reputation for outrageous comments, such as X (the only such remark that has more than a couple of hundred google hits), that others have accused him of racism because of the comments, and links to three articles where people criticize his loose mouth. That's hardly an article that indicates his remark was an anomaly. Cataloguing every alleged misstep is fancruft and not appropriate for Wikipedia. It's also POV when the "controversial" remarks you're seeking to include are identical to remarks that Hillary Clinton has made that not even her enemies have said boo about. I'm responding to the RFC, and have no desire to write a lengthy biography of Conrad Burns. -- FRCP11 00:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree completely with FRCP11. Gamaliel, by your reasoning ("The article should document his history of such remarks since he has a reputation for continually making such remarks"), one could argue that since Sen. Burns has a reputation for getting homestate appropriations, the article should document a huge list of Montana appropriations. Law-makers vote on thousands of bills, issue thousands of press releases, receive thousands of individual campaign contributions, and show up at hundreds of public events year after year. There is a point where we as editors have to make judgments about what's extraneous information and what's relevant in this article and any other article on a member of the U.S. Congress. 172 | Talk 05:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Oh it was hardly a huge list, and I'd have no problem documenting, say, significant instances of homestate appropriations. Of course, we do have to make judgments about what is important to document, but those judgments must factor in the judgments of mainstream media sources on the issue, or the judgment is merely a pov conclusion. If you decide something is unimportant, but the sources disagree, on Wikipedia we have to go with the latter. Gamaliel 14:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 :::::: It was disproportionaly long with respect to the article, and the only thing it mentions is Burn’s raghead comment. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Then let's expand the article. Where should we start? Gamaliel 16:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Expand the article first, then we'll talk about reinserting the quotations. And, by the way, a couple of articles do not mean that the "sources agree" that these quotations are relevant. As I mentioned before, Congressional Quarterly does not mention a single one of them, nor does it state that he has a reputation for verbal gaffes. If anything, the sources are inconclusive on this matter. 172 | Talk 18:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
While CQ is an impressive publication, if it doesn't mention something, that doesn't render it irrelevant and obscure. And you've produced nothing to refute Time and AAP that these are notable. So I ask again, where should we start expanding the article? Gamaliel 18:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

<---------- Gamaliel, you asked for comments, you got them, the consensus is to remove the quotes, abide by that. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

One comment from one person, and nothing to dispute Time and AAP. Gamaliel 18:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually, its three people, leaving you in the minority. Give it up, none of use think the quotes are particularly noteworthy. Torturous Devastating Cudgel
Don't think so, when I've got sources backing me up about his propensity for this sort of thing, and all you can offer is opinion and the lack of his presence in the journal CQ. Gamaliel 18:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
You have one reference from Time mentioning one of the above quotes and very few google hits on the quotes (even less when you take away wikipedia and its mirrors). Consensus says no, notability says no, so that’s that. And if you think that you are going to get this included by calling in like minded users, thats not a very productive move. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 1. Always Having to Say He's Sorry,  The New York Times, March 2, 2006 Thursday,  Late Edition - Final, Section A; Column 1; Editorial Desk; Pg. 27, 724 words, By BOB HERBERT 
 2. Wikipedia's Help From the Hill; Edits Lead Site to Block Some Lawmakers' Offices,  The Washington Post, February 9, 2006 Thursday,  Final Edition, A Section; A21, 693 words, Yuki Noguchi, Washington Post Staff Writer 
 3. Weirder And Weirder ,  The New York Times, December 19, 2002 Thursday,  Late Edition - Final , Section A; Column 6; Editorial Desk; Pg. 39, 691 words,  By BOB HERBERT; E-mail: bobherb@nytimes.com 
 4. A Nose Ring, and Burns Says Hello . . .,  The Washington Post, March 1, 2000, Wednesday, Final Edition, A SECTION; Pg. A15; THE FEDERAL PAGE; IN THE LOOP, 915 words, Kamen , Washington Post Staff Writer 
 5. Burns's A List: African Americans, Arabs, The Washington Post, March 12, 1999, Friday, Final Edition, A SECTION; Pg. A31; IN THE LOOP; THE FEDERAL PAGE, 883 words, Al Kamen

Here are a few more sources. Gamaliel 18:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but providing sources does not equal notability, try again. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
When multiple prominent national publications repeatedly mention your propensity for making controversial statments, your propensity for making controversial statmenents is notable. Gamaliel 19:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Gamaliel, that's not reasonable. CQ isn't going to print "Senator X doesn't make gaffes." CQ, on the other hand, does make note of senators with particularly bad reputations for gaffes, and didn't do so here. Time magazine doesn't support you, either: the version in Time gives even less weight to the missteps than the current Wikipedia article does.
You've done great work beating back the conspiracy theorists on the Oswald article, but this isn't a case of sanitizing. The information is in the article, and you're demanding that it be made the most prominent part of the article when it's not the most prominent part of Burns's career by a longshot. The issue here is why you think the current article is insufficient. What notable event or characterization has been left out? This is the third time I've asked the question and I still don't have an answer from you, but that's the question you need to answer if you're going to create consensus for expanding the discussion in the article.
-- FRCP11 18:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't want it to be the most prominent part of the article. When I have inserted it I have repeatedly done so below most of the other sections. If the other sections are insufficiently prominent, then we should expand them and I have repeatedly offered to work with other editors in expanding those sections. But it should be a lot more prominent that one sentence, and I have clearly stated why the "current article" (which means the old article with the whole section chopped out) is insufficent: multiple national publications, well before Time magazine crowned him the "Shock Jock", have noted and reported on his propensity for making these statements. This deserves more than one sentence, but currently it's treated with the same amount of space as Burns' management of the Northern International Livestock Expo. I have clearly demonstrated notablity repeatedly, even if some editors don't want to hear it. Thanks for the props on the Oswald article. Gamaliel 19:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Gamaliel, this isn't true. You inserted the quotes section above substantive sections each time.
It's also not true that "it's treated with the same amount of space as Burns' management of the Livestock Expo". The Livestock Expo is 13 words (the bare minimum to convey the concept), and the remarks are 37 words plus three links in the main text and external links that make clear that there's more than just what's discussed in the main text. That's already a heck of a lot of weight for something not especially notable.
Instead of talking about expanding the article, why don't you just expand the article? It's doubtful that Burns really merits it, but if that's how you want to spend your time, go ahead.
And I'll add, for the fourth time, what is missing from the article that is notable? You still haven't answered the question. You cite five articles; one isn't about the remarks; two are Bob Herbert columns, which are already cited in the main text and the external links; and two are Al Kamen trivia columns, which tend not to be about notable subjects. -- FRCP11 19:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I thought the only substantive section I placed it above was the Abramoff section, a current event whose historical relevance remains to be seen. If I am mistaken in this recollection, then next time I will ensure that I place it only above that section, or perhaps an alternative placement of your suggestion.
I didn't bother counting the number of words and I don't see how that's particularly relevant. My point remains. Your preferred version would treat it with the same amount of emphasis as irrelevant biographical trivia.
I'll expand the article when I have time, meaning when I'm not writing replies here or, say, actually working here in the office. Once again, my point remains. If people are genuinely concerned about the inadequacy of other sections of the article, they will assist in efforts to expand them.
What is missing from the article are the notable incidents covered in the national media which people keep deleting. I'm not sure what kind of answer to your question will satisfy you to the point where you think I've actually answered your question. I've attempted to answer it several different times, though I admit my replies may have been rushed since I'm at work. Perhaps you could rephrase it to indicate what you want me to say. Gamaliel 19:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Gamaliel: Your preferred version would treat it with the same amount of emphasis as irrelevant biographical trivia.

Have you read the article, or are you just going on the fact that the quotes don't have their own section? I've summarized the quote controversy in 37 words, with three links to outside sources. That's not the weight of "trivia." You say you want "the notable incidents covered in the national media", but there aren't any notable incidents covered in the national media that aren't in the article or one of its links. I'm really mystified why you think something that can be accurately summarized in 37 words needs its own section expanded with remarks that aren't considered notable when far more notable people make them. Why do you think a joke about getting "knee-walking drunk" is notable? WIkipedia aspires to be more than a compilation of every time someone gets mentioned in an Al Kamen article for a good or bad turn of phrase. -- FRCP11 20:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't care less about the "knee walking drunk" joke. Gamaliel 20:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
But it was in Time Magazine! There were two Burns remarks in Time: "raghead" (in the article) and "knee walking drunk" (you don't care). Where's the problem? Take out knee-walking drunk, and Wikipedia now gives more weight than Time Magazine. -- FRCP11 20:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. I will insert the "knee walking drunk" quote into the section next time I add it to the article. You asked why I thought it was notable and I personally don't think that that particular quote is, but I'm not going to substitute my judgment for that of major, mainstream news sources, as so many editors on this page wish are prone to do. Gamaliel 20:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I have a good idea, hows about neither. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Link all the racial controversies?

Regarding the edits of various put in the racial controversies,[7] maybe putting them under one section would be better than having them scattered throughout the article? The 1999 incident and the 2006 indictent in one section? Arbusto 18:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Infoboxes

It is important to state the current state of events, not what will happen soon. As such, the Senator is still in office, and has not been succeeded yet. Stealthound 20:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

That is correct. His term does not end until the new Congress is sworn in, scheduled for January 3, 2007. -Will Beback 23:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball

Please consult this source before changing the "Succeeded by" sections of the article. This is the official position of wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, predicting what will happen in the future. As the Senator is still in office, the article should be left as it is. Thank you, Stealthound 08:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)